Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-276009

Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 11/24Owed an answerPosted August 27, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents specific analytical deficiencies in the DEIS regarding big game population projections, habitat fragmentation application, and sediment delivery, while asserting a reliance interest under Encino Motorcars and requesting the agency to analyze an alternative retaining the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

Scored directly — The comment's whole text was scored on its own.

Scorecard

Each dimension is scored 0–3; the eight sum to the substance score out of 24.

Specific placeNames a specific location — from a region down to an exact creek, trail, road, or map reference.
Local knowledgeDraws on a first-hand connection to the place — visits, sustained activity, occupation, or a professional role.
EA analysisEngages the agency's environmental analysis directly.
Analytical gapIdentifies something the analysis fails to address.
EvidenceBacks claims with specific facts, data, or research.
RequestMakes a specific, actionable request of the agency.
AlternativeProposes a different course of action.
LegalCites statutes, regulations, or legal obligations.

How hard it is to set aside

A3 weak: Substantive, but easier to set aside.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap.

Standard dismissals it defeats

Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.

Still open to the agency

Alternative already eliminated The agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Already addressed The agency says its analysis already covers the point. Defeated when the comment cites the law itself: there is no analysis to cite against a statutory claim.
Deferred to a later decision The agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Not required The agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Preference noted The agency notes the comment as a statement of preference and takes no action on it. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
No cause and effect shown The agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
Certified not substantive The agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.

Topics

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “I hunt. What it would mean to me if this country got roaded”
- “I hike the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness, the Sapphire roadless areas”
- “The only time I truly feel free is when I'm on those lands”
- “managed for clean water, wildlife, and human recreational purposes”
Wildlife Habitat
- “I watch Elk, Deer, Moose, bears, Turkeys as well as all the species of birds”
- “elk survival rates increased during a road closure and decreased when the gates were removed”
- “habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent”
- “elk avoid roads and select unroaded habitat”
Water Quality Quantity
- “The water I fish, in my own words: "I fish high mountain lakes, valley rivers and valley lakes."”
- “Water is the life blood of my valley, and it's under attack from outside mining interests”
- “clean gravel and clear current are what make them fishable”
- “quantify projected sediment delivery to the more than 7,000 municipal intakes”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Under Encino Motorcars and Regents, an agency changing course must assess the reliance interests”
- “I ask that the agency identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments”
- “ask that the agency analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule's protections”
- “provide a reasoned explanation for it on the record”

What it names

National Forests: Bitterroot National Forest

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidenceLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 I hunt. What it would mean to me if this country got roaded: "I've hunted for 64 years. Hunting is our food, our way of life." The water I fish, in my own words: "I fish high mountain lakes, valley rivers and valley lakes." I hike the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness, the Sapphire roadless areas, the Pioneer Roadless areas, and the Anaconda Pintler Wilderness areas. The only time I truly feel free is when I'm on those lands. I watch Elk, Deer, Moose, bears, Turkeys as well as all the species of birds that use my forested lands. Water is the life blood of my valley, and it's under attack from outside mining interests. On what my kids should inherit out there: "These forest are my children and grandchildren's heritage. One I'll fight for." Fires are a natural part of our forests, I've seen this all my 65 years. It's necessary and part of the environment. I've commented on before and though I'm tired of the people that are trying to take away these lands, I'll fight until the day I day for them. These lands in question should be managed for clean water, wildlife, and human recreational purposes. The country I am writing about includes the Bitterroot National Forest. I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I raise the following issues for the record and ask that the agency respond to each of them: Issue 1: Elk survival, in the agency’s own citation I hunt elk, and the security of unroaded country is what puts them there. The agency's own citation measured what roads cost them: The DEIS cites the finding that elk survival rates increased during a road closure and decreased when the gates were removed (Cole 1997), and that elk avoid roads and select unroaded habitat. No population-level effect on big game is projected anywhere in the document. I ask that the agency project the effects on big game populations and hunter opportunity. Issue 2: Fragmentation is quantified and not applied I hunt deer, and what I need from this country is that it holds together. The agency put a number on fragmentation and then never applied it: The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent. The number appears; no projection across the 40.1 million affected acres follows. I ask that the agency apply the cited fragmentation range to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment. Issue 3: Reliance interests are invited and never assessed I have built years of hunting around the protection this rule provides. That is a reliance interest, and it is exactly what the agency invited comment on. The proposal solicits “any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal” (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. Under Encino Motorcars and Regents, an agency changing course must assess the reliance interests its prior policy created. This comment is such an interest. I ask that the agency identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Issue 4: Road sediment is quantified and then set aside I fish these waters, and clean gravel and clear current are what make them fishable. What roads send downstream lands on the fish first, and on me right after. The DEIS: skid roads, trails, log landings and similar disturbances within timber sale areas are the main cause of soil erosion and “can contribute up to 90 percent of the sediment generated by timber sale activity.” The number appears in the document; no projection of sediment delivery follows it. I ask that the agency quantify projected sediment delivery to the more than 7,000 municipal intakes downstream of these areas. I request that the agency respond in the record to each of the issues raised in this comment, and that it analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule’s protections. Where this proposal rests on factual conclusions that differ from the agency’s own prior findings quoted here, I ask that the agency acknowledge the change in position and provide a reasoned explanation for it on the record. Sincerely, Robert S. Wood Hamilton, Mt 59840